What is the difference between a claim framed in trust and that made out of deceit?

It can be seen that the legal issue sought to be litigated here, namely the issue of deceit, is somewhat different from the claim advanced by the appellant in the earlier proceedings which was a claim framed in trust. On any view of matters, the appellant must acknowledge that not later than the time of the trial of the first proceedings, he was aware of those facts upon which he now wishes to base his present proceeding. No amendment was sought in the earlier proceedings to advance a claim or claims for relief on the basis upon which the appellant now seeks relief. The appellant had counsel up to and including the time of the commencement of the trial of the first proceedings. It appears that during the course of the trial, the counsel for the appellant either withdrew or was discharged. In the often cited case of Henderson v. Henderson, [1843] 8 Hare 100,67 E.R. 313, Wigram, V.C. said this concerning the conduct of litigation: ... I believe I state the rule of the court correctly, when I say, that where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case. The plea of res judicata applies, except in special case, not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.